With gun control a very hot topic...

TravelinMan wrote:So you don't want Diane Fienstein to resign, because there's "no clear path" to her replacement, but you'll bleat on about "Ban guns" with no clear path on how to do so?

Whatever fits your narrative, I guess?

edit - My point in the other thread was about people believing only the reporting that fits their biases, not about Feinstein at all. I have posted counterpoint articles only to show that even for their arguments, that she needs to go to get more judges approved, they are not seeing the total picture, probably due to their bias and frustration with politics.

The path is clear, the politics are harder.  A number of states have banned certain guns, not enough guns IMO, but it's a start.  I wish Michigan would join them, but it seems questionable.  Maybe in the lame duck after the 2024 election.

There is another path, the one taken in the 1930's with certain guns.  Extremely high taxes.

edit - Oh and Ban Guns.

TravelinMan wrote:So you don't want Diane Fienstein to resign, because there's "no clear path" to her replacement, but you'll bleat on about "Ban guns" with no clear path on how to do so?

Whatever fits your narrative, I guess?

Not sure what the reference is too, but stop selling weapons of war to any shithead off the street would be a GREAT start.

Force every sale by a licensed seller & to register, license and insure them. Destroy all confiscated... The only supply would be on the secondary market. Supply/Demand would get them out of the hands of MOST crazy 18-25 year olds.
Those with them would value them more, because if they didn't license, register and insure, The next time at the range the guy next to you asks for your paperwork, the thing will be melted down if you don't have it... And that's one less out of the supply chain. In 10 years they will be worth more than cars and mass shootings will be a TON more difficult to pull off.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:So you don't want Diane Fienstein to resign, because there's "no clear path" to her replacement, but you'll bleat on about "Ban guns" with no clear path on how to do so?

Whatever fits your narrative, I guess?

edit - My point in the other thread was about people believing only the reporting that fits their biases, not about Feinstein at all. I have posted counterpoint articles only to show that even for their arguments, that she needs to go to get more judges approved, they are not seeing the total picture, probably due to their bias and frustration with politics.

The path is clear, the politics are harder.  A number of states have banned certain guns, not enough guns IMO, but it's a start.  I wish Michigan would join them, but it seems questionable.  Maybe in the lame duck after the 2024 election.

There is another path, the one taken in the 1930's with certain guns.  Extremely high taxes.

edit - Oh and Ban Guns.

You’re aware that you’re ignoring anything that is inconvenient to you in that thread…. Right?

TravelinMan wrote:So you don't want Diane Fienstein to resign, because there's "no clear path" to her replacement, but you'll bleat on about "Ban guns" with no clear path on how to do so?

Whatever fits your narrative, I guess?

Hey, bruh, narratives must always be questioned. Don't just blindly trust the narratives. You never know what kinds of lies and misdirection went into the narrative as narratives can be bad actors trying to push their preferred narrative. The truth is out there, just be careful m8. G'day